ObamaCare contraceptive mandate compromise? Or sleight of hand?

How do you compromise core principles of your religion, the exercise of which is guaranteed in the First Amendment?

The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case of Zubik v. Burwell — in which petitioners argue the ObamaCare mandate to provide contraceptive coverage in company insurance plans violates their religious beliefs — to lower court where it says a compromise should be worked out.

Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”

Cost free to whom? Somebody pays and it is usually in the form of higher premiums. So the company is paying for something its owners believe is a sin.

This is nothing but sleight of hand trickery and a way for the court to avoid a 4-4 tie by delaying.

If a Christian lives in Texas, can he refuse to pay state taxes because some fraction of his money pays for capital punishment or refuse to pay federal taxes because he believes the Mideast wars are murder?

If an employer pays his employee and the employee goes out and buys a contraceptive, is he obligated by his religion to fire the employee? Only an extremist would argue that he would. Once an employee is paid, how she spends her money is her business, alone.

Health insurance is a form of pay. Once the pay is in the hands of the employee, it is their business if they decide to use it or not. Whether the employer is paying for the sin is irrelevant just as it is if the employee was paid in cash and buys a contraceptive with it.

The same thing occurs with democracy of any kind. If 58% of the people vote for something, then the minority must yield to the will of the majority. Luckily for those of your views, we don’t live in a democracy.

Evolution is inexorable. The constitutional republic exists only in theory. In practical terms, it is quickly morphing into a plutocracy. The same thing happened in the Gilded Age, but we had a fortunate turn of events. I hope we’re as lucky again.

We started as a plutocracy. It has always been such, the world over.
Our difference was being governed by a republic.
The so called democracy it morphed to is what made the so called “rich” such bad people to be mocked even as they become today’s major candidates.

Your point is well taken, but I believe there are substantial differences. It’s a different world now. In the early days, the rich may have owned a few farms. Today, they are worth more than some countries. Technology for mind control and usage of propaganda was rudimentary. We had a frontier that provided options for the disaffected and ungovernable, Water rights were a minor concern, pollution was only an occasional local issue, health care needed no bureaucracy because there was so little that we could do anyway. The finance industry consisted mostly of banks lending money. Corporations were a very small force. Defense was also small time because the oceans were reasonably effective barriers and the rich felt no need to control other countries as they do today. Etc., etc. Taxation was low because so many governmental services weren’t needed as they are today. Why are they needed today? 1) Far greater population 2) major changes in technology.

The greatest difference, which exists because of these factors, is that in the early days, except for the Gilded Age, the middle and lower classes gained along with the rich. That is no longer the case.

Archives

Archives

Battle Born

4TH ST8

"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact ... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. the requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to ... Democracy virtually extant will insist on becoming palpably extant."